Since the Wii U was first unveiled, quite a few people have asked if the system was really powerful enough to handle HD graphics while pushing an 854×480 image out to the tablet GamePad wirelessly in real time. Has to come with significant lag, right? We haven't noticed any latency between the GamePad and the on-screen action in any of our hands-on tests with the system, but other reports differed on this score. Rayman Legends developer Michel Ancel has now confirmed the GamePad image on the Wii U suffers only 1/60th of a second delay.

"It's crazy because the game is running in full HD [on the television], we are streaming another picture on the GamePad screen, and it's still 60 frames per second," Ancel told Nintendo Power (as noticed by Nintendo Everything). "And the latency on the controller is just 1/60 of a second, so it’s one frame late. It’s crazy, it’s so fast. It’s almost instant. That’s why it responds so well. So it can be used as a real game-design thing."

While a one-frame delay might actually be noticeable by some of the craziest pro fighting game players, the minute difference is going to be practically undetectable for most gamers. On a game like Black Ops 2, for instance, the player using the tablet screen shouldn't be at any real disadvantage over the player on the HDTV.

Ancel's report gels with a Digital Foundry test from this summer which showed the Wii U GamePad actually mirrored on-screen content a few frames before it ended up being displayed on the TV, thanks to post-processing on the HD set. The precise difference in the two displays is probably going to depend on the particular software implementation, but Ancel's description seems to show that hardware won't be the limiting factor.

Elsewhere in the interview, Ancel called the Wii U GamePad's technology "quite a bit more advanced than people think." He mentioned competitors like Microsoft's SmartGlass and Sony's PS3/Vita connectivity would have to work hard to get to this level of responsiveness.

The idea that the WiiU can push HD content, content out to a secondary gamepad screen, and still do so with minimal lag is only incredible if you're operating from the frame of reference of the previous generation of consoles. This isn't a console vs. PC argument, but there are consumer grade PCs on the market that can push 1080p or better across three screens at better than 60 FPS.

Honestly, if the WiiU wasn't pushing enough horsepower to make the controller work seamlessly, I (a) don't think Nintendo would have launched it and (b) would have been seriously disappointed.

The idea that the WiiU can push HD content, content out to a secondary gamepad screen, and still do so with minimal lag is only incredible if you're operating from the frame of reference of the previous generation of consoles. This isn't a console vs. PC argument, but there are consumer grade PCs on the market that can push 1080p or better across three screens at better than 60 FPS.

Honestly, if the WiiU wasn't pushing enough horsepower to make the controller work seamlessly, I (a) don't think Nintendo would have launched it and (b) would have been seriously disappointed.

It's not a horsepower issue, sure, it's more of a programming issue though. If you sent a signal from your PC out to your TV wirelessly for a second player to use a second screen to render completely different image, I would be surprised if the two screens were within 1/60th of a second of rendering. How they program this (and account for controller lag input) is interesting, and necessary for a smooth experience. The fact that they've accounted for this and programmed around it is impressive.

The idea that the WiiU can push HD content, content out to a secondary gamepad screen, and still do so with minimal lag is only incredible if you're operating from the frame of reference of the previous generation of consoles. This isn't a console vs. PC argument, but there are consumer grade PCs on the market that can push 1080p or better across three screens at better than 60 FPS.

Honestly, if the WiiU wasn't pushing enough horsepower to make the controller work seamlessly, I (a) don't think Nintendo would have launched it and (b) would have been seriously disappointed.

I tend to question the use of HD, as it's been a horribly subjective/misleading term with the past console generation. Both the PS3 and 360 have been able to get away with telling everyone that games are HD because they are software scaled to HD resolutions. Meanwhile, most games are rendered internally at 1280x720 at best. Many are rendered well below 1280x720. We've also seen some of Nintendo's first party Wii U titles rendered only at 1280x720 while others are rendered at 1080p.

I'm also wondering how things will work when more than one pad is used. Prior to being closer to final specs, Nintendo claimed the Wii U would support 4 pads running simultaneously. That's been changed to 2 now that we're so near release. So, I'm curious if using more than one pad will have any effect upon rendering resolution or framerate.

The idea that the WiiU can push HD content, content out to a secondary gamepad screen, and still do so with minimal lag is only incredible if you're operating from the frame of reference of the previous generation of consoles. This isn't a console vs. PC argument, but there are consumer grade PCs on the market that can push 1080p or better across three screens at better than 60 FPS.

Honestly, if the WiiU wasn't pushing enough horsepower to make the controller work seamlessly, I (a) don't think Nintendo would have launched it and (b) would have been seriously disappointed.

You understand it incorrectly.

You can have the most powerful PC in the world, connect it to a TV with horrible input lag (you can achieve this by enabling every single post processing "feature" on the TV) and it will still have horrible lag, even when the PC is rending the image at 120 fps. Sure, you are getting the full 120 fps on the TV, except that every frame is like 3-6 frames behind.

Just like you cannot get "faster internet" by upgrading your PC but still using dial up internet.

The idea that the WiiU can push HD content, content out to a secondary gamepad screen, and still do so with minimal lag is only incredible if you're operating from the frame of reference of the previous generation of consoles. This isn't a console vs. PC argument, but there are consumer grade PCs on the market that can push 1080p or better across three screens at better than 60 FPS.

Honestly, if the WiiU wasn't pushing enough horsepower to make the controller work seamlessly, I (a) don't think Nintendo would have launched it and (b) would have been seriously disappointed.

I tend to question the use of HD, as it's been a horribly subjective/misleading term with the past console generation. Both the PS3 and 360 have been able to get away with telling everyone that games are HD because they are software scaled to HD resolutions. Meanwhile, most games are rendered internally at 1280x720 at best. Many are rendered well below 1280x720. We've also seen some of Nintendo's first party Wii U titles rendered only at 1280x720 while others are rendered at 1080p.

I'm also wondering how things will work when more than one pad is used. Prior to being closer to final specs, Nintendo claimed the Wii U would support 4 pads running simultaneously. That's been changed to 2 now that we're so near release. So, I'm curious if using more than one pad will have any effect upon rendering resolution or framerate.

Actually Nintendo never claimed 4 Wii U pads could be supported - one of the big speculations after the initial review was if multiple pads would be allowed. Initially only one was supported, but 2 will be supported post launch with a system update.

2 pad support will affect framerate, as it accomplishes this by multiplexing the signal, so each pad runs at 30 FPS instead of 60 FPS when 1 pad is used. Theoretically they could support 4 in this manner, but it would mean each pad runs at 15 FPS (or 20 FPS for 3 pads at the same time).

While a one-frame delay might actually be noticeable by some of the craziest pro fighting game players, the minute difference is going to be practically undetectable for most gamers. On a game like Black Ops 2, for instance, the player using the tablet screen shouldn't be at any real disadvantage over the player on the HDTV.

Actually in most cases, someone using the tablet screen will have an advantage over someone viewing the HTDV, as most TVs have some non-trivial input lag, especially when they aren't set up correctly for games.

When I got a chance to try the Wii U, it was very obvious to me that the tablets were rendering well ahead of the HDTVs they had set up at the event.

John Carmack's last Quakecon keynote was all about this type of latency, how much of an issue it is in today's hardware, and how much could be done to improve it. I'm surprised Nintendo was the first to get it right.

John Carmack's last Quakecon keynote was all about this type of latency, how much of an issue it is in today's hardware, and how much could be done to improve it. I'm surprised Nintendo was the first to get it right.

True... But then those are the benefits of making your own hardware which don't interoperate with anything else. The problem with making your own solutions tends to come when you try running it in people's homes where it can get interference from all sorts of things.

It's nice to see that some companies are paying attention to the issue of display lag though.

The idea behind the Wii U has so much potential; it'll be interesting to see if developers end up doing really cool things with it. I will be very surprised if the next generation of Xbox doesn't allow for similar functionality, allowing you to use a Windows 8 tablet as a controller.

This might be a bit nit-picky, but I feel like you should really avoid using the word "minute" (in reference to something small) when the title of the article is about the speed at which this controller updates. The phrase "the minute difference is going to be practically undetectable for most gamer" is easily misunderstood, and could be taken WAY out of context when quoted by others.

No. They're also not mass produced or designed by hand by teams of hundreds of engineers, using code written by teams of developers that are specifically designed for the hardware that's being used, in order to create the tightest, most seamless experience possible. The point I was making is that the kind of hardware needed for this type of experience has been commonplace for years. It shouldn't be remarkable to a developer who's even remotely interested in platforms that aren't seven year old consoles.

The idea that the WiiU can push HD content, content out to a secondary gamepad screen, and still do so with minimal lag is only incredible if you're operating from the frame of reference of the previous generation of consoles. This isn't a console vs. PC argument, but there are consumer grade PCs on the market that can push 1080p or better across three screens at better than 60 FPS.

Honestly, if the WiiU wasn't pushing enough horsepower to make the controller work seamlessly, I (a) don't think Nintendo would have launched it and (b) would have been seriously disappointed.

You understand it incorrectly.

You can have the most powerful PC in the world, connect it to a TV with horrible input lag (you can achieve this by enabling every single post processing "feature" on the TV) and it will still have horrible lag, even when the PC is rending the image at 120 fps. Sure, you are getting the full 120 fps on the TV, except that every frame is like 3-6 frames behind.

Just like you cannot get "faster internet" by upgrading your PC but still using dial up internet.

Do you think that the WiiU will have no input lag on a TV with horrible input lag?

so, with the pad-as-game-controller trend well on its way, Nintendo's advantage is going to be the least latency? I feel like that's going to help them about as much as better one-to-one movement reproduction helped the Sony Move... and we saw how fast Nintendo replicated that... How fast will Sony and Microsoft catch up? Is the gamepad be more powerful than a Vita? Can it possibly keep up with better and better phones/tablets that Microsoft's smartglass has the potential to be compatible with? But the best question is, (for all platforms, not just the GamePad):

Chmilz wrote:

Ok, so the hardware is good. That's a step in the right direction. Now the question is: will someone step forward and develop games that maximize its potential? That'll be the one to look for.

This might be a bit nit-picky, but I feel like you should really avoid using the word "minute" (in reference to something small) when the title of the article is about the speed at which this controller updates. The phrase "the minute difference is going to be practically undetectable for most gamer" is easily misunderstood, and could be taken WAY out of context when quoted by others.

This was my thought. The author writes, "While a one-frame delay might actually be noticeable by some of the craziest pro fighting game players..."

This is incorrect. Some people will imagine or claim they can detect a delay, but they will be wrong. Humans can't distinguish a 16ms delay when it's a response to a command of their own that involves far more uncertainty in the time that they perceive their command to have taken place.

While a one-frame delay might actually be noticeable by some of the craziest pro fighting game players, the minute difference is going to be practically undetectable for most gamers. On a game like Black Ops 2, for instance, the player using the tablet screen shouldn't be at any real disadvantage over the player on the HDTV.

Actually in most cases, someone using the tablet screen will have an advantage over someone viewing the HTDV, as most TVs have some non-trivial input lag, especially when they aren't set up correctly for games.

When I got a chance to try the Wii U, it was very obvious to me that the tablets were rendering well ahead of the HDTVs they had set up at the event.

Same here, I was at WiiU event in Chicago, and playing the Rayman game, ironically(? coincidentally) was where I noticed this... the timing of the GamePad player is important and I definitely felt like I was a bit ahead when I was in that role.

This is incorrect. Some people will imagine or claim they can detect a delay, but they will be wrong. Humans can't distinguish a 16ms delay when it's a response to a command of their own that involves far more uncertainty in the time that they perceive their command to have taken place.

From first hand experience I can tell you that a frame of input lag is fairly noticeable in some cases. SFIV for example has a frame of input lag on the PS3 version not found on the 360 one, and anybody used to the 360 version will most likely have to adjust to the PS3 one when playing it for the first time, especially for a game so reliant on one frame timings as SFIV.

Do you think that the WiiU will have no input lag on a TV with horrible input lag?

You seem to be working really hard to miss the point. This is it:

The Wii U is constantly sending high-quality, bandwidth-intensive video wirelessly to a remote device, and it's doing it with very low latency. This is a task which PCs are seldom ever called on to do, and in my experience with remote desktop applications, you'll usually see more than 17 ms of latency.

Many, many users see worse latency in the wired connections to their TVs, therefore the wireless connection to the Wii U controller is really quite good.

John Carmack's last Quakecon keynote was all about this type of latency, how much of an issue it is in today's hardware, and how much could be done to improve it. I'm surprised Nintendo was the first to get it right.

I'm not surprised. Gameplay is Nintendo's thing, so they'd want to make sure lag isn't much of an issue.

There were people that doubted the ability of the Wavebird to provide lag-free play too.

Do you think that the WiiU will have no input lag on a TV with horrible input lag?

You seem to be working really hard to miss the point. This is it:

The Wii U is constantly sending high-quality, bandwidth-intensive video wirelessly to a remote device, and it's doing it with very low latency. This is a task which PCs are seldom ever called on to do, and in my experience with remote desktop applications, you'll usually see more than 17 ms of latency.

Many, many users see worse latency in the wired connections to their TVs, therefore the wireless connection to the Wii U controller is really quite good.

...OK?

Your comparison to remote desktop applications is probably moot, because no one uses remote desktop on a computer that's in the same room as they are. Are control signals significantly more or less complicated than what I'm sending to and from my wireless mouse on a regular basis, because that seems to manage less than 1 frame of lag pretty consistently and has been doing so for something on the order of a decade, now.

Don't misunderstand me: I'm not saying this is a trivial technological problem. It's certainly not. But the technology to accomplish something like this isn't cutting edge or even particularly novel, it's just solid technology put together with good programming in a tightly controlled environment. It's an accomplishment, no doubt, and one Nintendo should be proud of, but I object to the idea that it's "amazing". It's only amazing if you're living in 2007 or you're deliberately trying to oversell the technical accomplishment.

Also, your point about wired signals going to the TV is itself unsound, because as you pointed out, the lag from the TV is caused *by the TV*. Not by the signal medium. The fact that Nintendo provides minimal input lag on a screen that they control and work with isn't surprising.

Which is why the point of the TV is so significant. If the TV itself has high lag, that's going to necessarily conflict with the frame rendering on the control pad. If you're looking at the pad and you press a button and the pad is already ten frames ahead of the TV because the TV itself has a great deal of lag, you're going to see a sixth of a second between pressing the button and it actually doing something on the TV. That could be a serious issue.

This was my thought. The author writes, "While a one-frame delay might actually be noticeable by some of the craziest pro fighting game players..."

This is incorrect. Some people will imagine or claim they can detect a delay, but they will be wrong. Humans can't distinguish a 16ms delay when it's a response to a command of their own that involves far more uncertainty in the time that they perceive their command to have taken place.

While it may be unlikely for someone to accurately point out that small of a delay between a single action and its result, there's often a lot more going on in a game than just that.

Adding 16ms of delay shrinks your window of opportunity for reacting to events by 16ms. If you have 100ms to react to an incoming attack, and your typical reaction time is 90ms, you will block the attack in a zero-lag environment. But adding 16ms of delay to the equation means that you see the event 16ms late, and so you only actually have 84ms to react, meaning your 90ms reaction is no longer good enough. You may not be able to detect the difference directly, but you will be able to notice trends of failing time-critical operations that you were barely able to do before.

Tiny delays can also be noticed where hand-eye feedback loops are involved such as moving a cursor or a camera. Even when you may not notice a delay between a discrete button push and its response, you can notice that your cursor or camera control feels a little sluggish or somehow just not right. This is an easy way to get a feel for the upscaling/input lag in a TV by moving a Wii cursor around the screen. On a CRT, it is completely crisp with almost no sluggish feeling whatsoever. On most HDTVs, even when there's not much other noticeable lag, it feels like you're dragging the cursor around a bit.

Though I will say that the line you quoted in the article IS misleading. Players who notice anything about the delay on the tablet are most likely to notice the LACK of delay relative to HDTVs.

Your comparison to remote desktop applications is probably moot, because no one uses remote desktop on a computer that's in the same room as they are.

I take it you do not have multiple computers in the same room? Case and point: If you have a computer setup specifically for media (aka, connected to tv, networked, etc), you remote desktop into it ....

I got the Wii at release. And while I've gamed on the Wii more then I have on the PS3, it has been sitting unused for some time now (mostly because I've had a back log of really good PC games). The PS3 has at least been useful as a Netflix box, the Wii, being ED rather then HD, wasn't really up to that.

So for the Wii-U, which brings to mind 'Kung Pow: Enter the Fist' rather then a urinal at least, I'm taking a wait and see stance. I absolutely LOVED Twilight Princess, but haven't even tried Skyward Sword yet. The Wii-U is going to have to really 'bring it' as far as titles go for me to pull the trigger. I don't mean launch titles, I mean sustained publisher buy in, with less 'waggle' and more great game play. If it is something I can do with a button press, don't even CONSIDER mapping it to a 'wave'.

The idea behind the Wii U has so much potential; it'll be interesting to see if developers end up doing really cool things with it. I will be very surprised if the next generation of Xbox doesn't allow for similar functionality, allowing you to use a Windows 8 tablet as a controller.

The Xbox will have similar functionality: its called SmartGlass, and will work with any Windows 8, iOS, Android, or Windows Phone device. It should roll out with the Xbox 2012 Fall Update.

The Verge has a demo of the Dance Central 3 implementation of SmartGlass.

I hate how everyone forgets sony was the first to do this with remoteplay

I hate how sony was the first to forget about remoteplayI BEGGED developers to use it more (I dream of using psp as the scope for an arcade perfect port of silent scope)maybe if sony actually let us use remoteplay, wiiu woildnt be getting all the credit for it?

The same thing happened with analog sticks. Sony actually had them on ps1 before n64 came out yet the ignorant keep crediting nintendo. The same ignorant who will reply that ps1s launch controller didn't have analog, forgetting that sony made numerous controllers after that.

No. They're also not mass produced or designed by hand by teams of hundreds of engineers, using code written by teams of developers that are specifically designed for the hardware that's being used, in order to create the tightest, most seamless experience possible. The point I was making is that the kind of hardware needed for this type of experience has been commonplace for years. It shouldn't be remarkable to a developer who's even remotely interested in platforms that aren't seven year old consoles.

Okay ... now I know you're just trolling. You put the term "Consumer Grade" and then pull this gem out of your rear end. Let's go back to the term you just used: "Consumer Grade". I'm going to assume this means (a) little technical know how - out of the box to get it working (b) it'll set you back a fraction of one pay period.

I got the Wii at release. And while I've gamed on the Wii more then I have on the PS3, it has been sitting unused for some time now (mostly because I've had a back log of really good PC games). The PS3 has at least been useful as a Netflix box, the Wii, being ED rather then HD, wasn't really up to that.

So for the Wii-U, which brings to mind 'Kung Pow: Enter the Fist' rather then a urinal at least, I'm taking a wait and see stance. I absolutely LOVED Twilight Princess, but haven't even tried Skyward Sword yet. The Wii-U is going to have to really 'bring it' as far as titles go for me to pull the trigger. I don't mean launch titles, I mean sustained publisher buy in, with less 'waggle' and more great game play. If it is something I can do with a button press, don't even CONSIDER mapping it to a 'wave'.

Skyward Sword is fantastic, you are missing out one of the best gaming experiences bar none. The sword fighting alone with the Wii remote is worthy of a game itself, it's a pity it took so long to be realised (and then only by Nintendo themselves). There are some seriously tough fights that require dexterity, the right kind of swing and good timing, enjoy!

I hate how everyone forgets sony was the first to do this with remoteplay

I hate how sony was the first to forget about remoteplayI BEGGED developers to use it more (I dream of using psp as the scope for an arcade perfect port of silent scope)maybe if sony actually let us use remoteplay, wiiu woildnt be getting all the credit for it?

The same thing happened with analog sticks. Sony actually had them on ps1 before n64 came out yet the ignorant keep crediting nintendo. The same ignorant who will reply that ps1s launch controller didn't have analog, forgetting that sony made numerous controllers after that.

The problem is that few developers will ever bother supporting a device that the user base is not guaranteed to have. The Wii U has an overwhelming advantage in that 100% of the Wii U userbase will have the gamepad, where a developer for the PS3 can only guess at the size of the userbase which will both purchase their game, and own a PSP/Vita.

In regards to analog sticks, the N64 came out in 1996, the dualshock was first released in 1997, as I recall.

Do you think that the WiiU will have no input lag on a TV with horrible input lag?

You seem to be working really hard to miss the point. This is it:

The Wii U is constantly sending high-quality, bandwidth-intensive video wirelessly to a remote device, and it's doing it with very low latency. This is a task which PCs are seldom ever called on to do, and in my experience with remote desktop applications, you'll usually see more than 17 ms of latency.

Many, many users see worse latency in the wired connections to their TVs, therefore the wireless connection to the Wii U controller is really quite good.

...OK?

Your comparison to remote desktop applications is probably moot, because no one uses remote desktop on a computer that's in the same room as they are. Are control signals significantly more or less complicated than what I'm sending to and from my wireless mouse on a regular basis, because that seems to manage less than 1 frame of lag pretty consistently and has been doing so for something on the order of a decade, now.

Don't misunderstand me: I'm not saying this is a trivial technological problem. It's certainly not. But the technology to accomplish something like this isn't cutting edge or even particularly novel, it's just solid technology put together with good programming in a tightly controlled environment. It's an accomplishment, no doubt, and one Nintendo should be proud of, but I object to the idea that it's "amazing". It's only amazing if you're living in 2007 or you're deliberately trying to oversell the technical accomplishment.

Also, your point about wired signals going to the TV is itself unsound, because as you pointed out, the lag from the TV is caused *by the TV*. Not by the signal medium. The fact that Nintendo provides minimal input lag on a screen that they control and work with isn't surprising.

Which is why the point of the TV is so significant. If the TV itself has high lag, that's going to necessarily conflict with the frame rendering on the control pad. If you're looking at the pad and you press a button and the pad is already ten frames ahead of the TV because the TV itself has a great deal of lag, you're going to see a sixth of a second between pressing the button and it actually doing something on the TV. That could be a serious issue.

And, there is no distinction (that you've come close to, anyways) between an Xbox controller and the WiiU tablet controls with regard to input lag. How you managed to cobble together an entire paragraph saying this is somehow an issue, much less a "serious one", with the WiiU shows what little comprehension you have on this subject. But, in the event that you even want to understand, simply consider that the delay is not caused by the system, it is caused by the post processing in the TV. Since the lag is introduced after the system sends the signal, there would be no difference between using an Xbox 360 or a WiiU controller. This is exactly why the minimal lag in the tablet is important and a GOOD thing; you could very realistically end up with a better and more responsive gaming experience using the tablet than your friend playing on the TV might.

Edit: Your button inputs will not be 1/6 of a second delayed, nor will they be 1/60 of a second delayed. What is delayed 1/60th of a second is the video displaying on the tablet. I don't know the lag of the button presses, but it is certainly not 1/6 of a second. And, the frames on the tablet and the TV are rendered at the same time, only displayed with varying delays (like the post processing mention in the TV).

Kyle Orland / Kyle is the Senior Gaming Editor at Ars Technica, specializing in video game hardware and software. He has journalism and computer science degrees from University of Maryland. He is based in Pittsburgh, PA.